Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,238   Online: 879
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    Here's another option... shoot motion picture film!

    They make a 500 ISO tungsten balance film.. 500T. You can get it in large rolls at cheap prices if you look hard enough, and a few places will process it in 35mm cartridges.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,181
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk View Post
    I don't quite understand why there wasn't a demand for fast colour negative tungsten balanced film.
    Same feelings here.

    As you're in the UK, buy up some 800Z from 7DS before it all sells out.

    Incidentally, Superia 1600 & Natura are the same film. I haven't heard any official word of their death yet.
    Steve.

  3. #13
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Here's another option... shoot motion picture film!

    They make a 500 ISO tungsten balance film.. 500T. You can get it in large rolls at cheap prices if you look hard enough, and a few places will process it in 35mm cartridges.
    This doesn't work because in SLR cameras the film is shot in landscape (narrow side across the film strip) and in motion the film is shot in portrait (long side across the film strip) so it would be too wide to fit in the camera unless you manually trim the film and add your own sprocket teeth....

    Not really a feasible option, and motion film isn't exactly cheap.
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  4. #14
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Markster View Post
    This doesn't work because in SLR cameras the film is shot in landscape (narrow side across the film strip) and in motion the film is shot in portrait (long side across the film strip) so it would be too wide to fit in the camera unless you manually trim the film and add your own sprocket teeth....

    Not really a feasible option, and motion film isn't exactly cheap.
    Hmmm... I hate to say it but you're completely wrong.

    The film is exactly the same size, and it works fine in any 35mm camera. I've done it, and I certainly wasn't the first!

    Plus, you can buy "short ends" very cheaply from different places and on eBay. In fact, a member on APUG was selling 100 foot rolls of 500T for about $25 if I recall correctly.

    To answer your filter question, that would be an 80A filter to convert day-light film (actually more yellow sensitive, hence your yellowish indoor pictures) to tungsten light. Ektar is day-light balanced; day-light is very blue; the film has to be more yellow sensitive to make bluish light appear white; tungsten light is yellow compared to daylight; the film sees it as VERY yellow. Tungsten film is more blue sensitive; this makes yellowish tungsten light appear white.
    Last edited by holmburgers; 10-13-2011 at 01:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  5. #15
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Hmmm... I hate to say it but you're completely wrong.
    That's quite possible. I recall the issue was brought up on these forums before and I recall what I typed was the general answer. If I'm wrong I stand corrected! However, from what I've seen of motion film and what I've seen of SLR film, they are oriented perpendicular to each other, so it made sense.


    P.S. thanks for the filter response!
    Last edited by Markster; 10-13-2011 at 01:17 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added post script
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  6. #16
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    It's true that the orientation of the film is different in motion-picture cameras.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk View Post
    I haven't got a KB 6 filter (80D) but I do have an 82B that I was thinking of using as a compromise are they quite similar?
    It's possible. But like I said, in many cases you can just shoot with no filter and correct it in post. It might not be 'perfect', but often plenty good enough. I see you were already in my flickr stream, but I'll post these examples here anyway.

    I'd draw your attention to the blues and the reds in the below shots, as well as the skin tones. Obviously, the blues look better in the daylight shot and the shot with the KB6 filter.

    Not as immediately obvious, the reds also look better in those shots. That's probably because the blue layer was boosted to compensate for the lower color temperature of the tungsten/no filter shot. Which ends up adding blue all over the picture. And since the red colors register primarily on the red sensitive layer of the film, they aren't as affected by the lower color temperature and lack of blue light. This is unlike a neutral gray, which is nominally registering on all three color sensitive layers equally in proper lighting, and overly warm (too little blue) in mismatched tungsten lighting. So adding more blue to adds more blue to the red (duh) making it more purple, while at the same time moving the too-warm grays to a proper neutral.

    Note, full filtering with an 80A would provide better results than the 80D. If you can afford to, put the 80A filter on your lens and be done with it.

    With that being said, the unfiltered shots look pretty good in my opinion and are perfectly usable for me. 99% of the time I just shoot whatever film I have (sans filter) in whatever light I'm in and don't worry about it at all. But I don't shoot product shots, etc., where ultimate color accuracy is needed. Lastly, I'll say that in my experience Portra 800 is also up to the task. If you need the extra stop of sensitivity and can handle the extra grain, it's a wonderful film.

    Portra 400 in daylight:

    Portra 400 proper exposure + hand by ezwal, on Flickr

    Portra 400 in tungsten (3200 K):

    Portra 400 Tungsten proper exposure + hand by ezwal, on Flickr

    Portra 400 in tungsten w/ KB6 (80D) filter:

    Portra 400 Tungsten KB6 proper exposure + hand by ezwal, on Flickr

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I do just want to clarify something. I'm not trying to make myself to be any kind of expert here. I've just found that after doing some simple testing (and blowing $40 on a filter), 99% of the time, I don't worry about tungsten lighting because I'm ok with the results I get.

  9. #19
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    Tim, just to clarify, that's without post-correction, right?

    Also does that filter add a bit of polarization? I notice in the unfiltered the color card is washed out with light. I don't know if the filter changed that in the following pics or if it's just the random placement catching the light in the worst way?
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Markster View Post
    Tim, just to clarify, that's without post-correction, right?

    Also does that filter add a bit of polarization? I notice in the unfiltered the color card is washed out with light. I don't know if the filter changed that in the following pics or if it's just the random placement catching the light in the worst way?
    These are with corrections. They were not wet printed, but I can tell you nothing fancy was done in photoshop or in the scanning stage. I would think that color balancing during wet printing would get you basically the same results.

    Glare: just ignore the glare. I'd be surprised if the filter affected polarization in any meaningful manner. I shot these with a rangefinder and wasn't particularly mindful of reflections on the cards in any of the shots. After I got them back from the lab, I had a "Doh!" moment. But I don't care enough to shoot them again

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin